Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill, but for reasons entirely opposite to those stated by my hon. colleague from the Reform Party.
As we know, this bill amends section 745, under which prisoners may eventually apply for parole. Parole is not granted automatically; it may be requested and may or may not be granted.
The amendments before us would require jury approval be unanimous rather than by two thirds majority, as it stands. What this means in real terms is that, at present, prisoners who apply for parole must first convince two thirds of the jury. It is no small task. It is not something that is easy to do. Let us face it, the burden of proof is already on the prisoners. It is an uphill battle for them.
Now, if the requirement provided for in section 745 is unanimity rather than a two thirds majority, prisoners no longer face an uphill battle, but an unscalable wall. Basically, all it would take is for one member of the jury to have any hesitation for the whole process to be stalled. We might just as well say that parole shall not be granted to anyone under any condition.
Section 745 would also be amended to deny serial killers, that is anyone who has committed more than one murder, access to this judicial review procedure. May I point out that an inmate's rehabilitation is not necessarily a function of the number of murders he may have committed as much as the circumstances surrounding these murders and the individual's character.
Let us consider, for example, the case of someone who commits a murder in cold blood, compared to that of another individual who kills two people in a panic. The latter may feel regret as he never had the intention of committing these murders in the first place, whereas the former may not feel sorry at all but still have access to the judicial review mechanism, while the repentant killer, on the other hand, would not.
The third amendment to Section 745 proposed in this bill provides for a selection mechanism whereby the chief justice of the superior court or the designated judge would determine, based on written representations, if the applicant has a reasonable chance of having his request approved by a jury. In other words, the convict who wants a judicial review must submit to the judge a written application outlining the reasons why he believes his request has a chance of being approved. The judge will then assess these reasons and determine if the application can be submitted to a jury, which must render a unanimous decision.
As you can see, these three amendments to Section 745 would make the implementation of the review mechanism triply ineffective.
Beyond these technical considerations, one has to look at the reasons why this judicial review process was originally put in place. We all agree that, when someone is handed down a very long sentence-such as imprisonment for life or 25 years-for a terrible
crime, one way of encouraging this individual to rehabilitate and to behave during his detention is to give him some faint hope that, if he does makes an effort to rehabilitate, he might eventually reintegrate society and become a good citizen. In other words, whether it is in jail or in any other sphere of human activity, motivation is always a powerful incentive.
Clause 745 would have the effect of destroying this motivation. Consequently, from the time an inmate knows that, for all intents and purposes, his chances of again becoming a member of society some day are nil, or that he will have to wait too long for such opportunity, why should he make any effort to rehabilitate? Why should he display good or even exemplary conduct in prison?
The proposed amendments to section 745 would have the effect of nipping in the bud any will to rehabilitate among those serving long sentences.
We have to look at the nature of the problem. As the English expression so appropriately says:
Is this an overkill? Let us look at the situation.
On December 31, 1995, 175 people in prison were eligible for a judiciary review. Of these 175 only 76 had made such a request. Of these, 13 had not been dealt with. That means 63 had been dealt with. Of these, 39 obtained a reduction in their inadmissibility delay. That does not mean they were released, it means that they could make another request after a certain period of time.
For those who had benefited from a release, as of December 31, 1995 only one was a repeat offender and the offence was armed robbery.
This is an overkill by the Minister of Justice.
Clifford Olson is a problem, but within the actual rules of the law he has virtually no chance at all of obtaining an early release. Are we going to change a system that has been fine tuned over the years to make totally sure that an individual with no chance really has no chance?
I believe that we are up against a situation here where the Minister of Justice is in the process of playing up to the Reform Party supporters, if I can put it that way, by applying rules similar to the ones Reform wanted to see implemented.
Under the circumstances, this ill-advised political opportunism would run counter to the interests of our society and would, without a doubt, move a piece of legislation that was drawn up carefully over time several decades back in time.
If I may, I would like to make use of the few minutes remaining to me to go beyond the bill to some more fundamental considerations. Essentially, the entire question of incarceration of an inmate has two purposes: first of all, of course, punishment for a crime, but also, and above all, public safety.
Often, although the crime committed requires punishment, the nature of the crime means that the person who has committed it no longer constitutes a risk to society and, provided a fine is paid or some other condition met, incarceration is not necessary, because public safety is not involved. When it is, however, imprisonment becomes necessary.
But every imprisonment involves release, eventually. The important thing is to ensure the individual no longer constitutes a risk for society when the release does take place. Now, an important point: does the prison setting offer the incarcerated individual the rehabilitation he or she needs to no longer represent a danger to our society on release?
Of course we could say: "Lock them up for life. They will not get out until after they are dead, and then they are no longer dangerous". Now that approach is extreme in the extreme, if you will pardon the overkill, and it does not reflect the basic values of a modern democratic society. We can do better than that. We can do better and we have the resources to do so.
The rehabilitation process should be such that, when the individual leaves prison, he no longer constitutes a risk to society and above all will be able to make a positive contribution to society. We must turn a passive individual into a person who will be an asset to society or at least give him that opportunity, since we cannot force people to change.
However that implies having a number of resources. It implies investing money to help this individual rehabilitate himself. As you know, I sit on the justice committee, and I had a chance to put questions to our experts in this field.
I simply asked them when, if a person is locked up for a certain period of time, let us say 10 years, does the rehabilitation process start? Believe it or not, it may take from 18 and 24 months, which means that, during most of the time he is incarcerated, there will be used no attempt at rehabilitation, and ample opportunity for his behaviour to deteriorate. Only in the final months is an attempt made to make him less of a danger to society, because eventually he will have to be released. Even if he is in for 25 years, eventually he will have to be released.
Our view of these issues goes back to the lack of resources only a few decades ago to help a person rehabilitate himself. Times have changed. If a person has some kind of chemical deficiency in the brain, we can treat that. We know that minute quantities of certain substances an individual may have too much or too little of in the course of his life can cause depression or manic states, in other words, they can significantly alter an individual's behaviour. It does not happen to everyone, but it does happen to some people.
We also know that the environment in which a young child is raised can influence his behaviour as an adult. And we also know, because of more advanced studies and research, how to make an individual become aware of his problems and to react effectively.
It is time that this knowledge was put to use in the prison system, so that, eventually, individuals would be kept in the system only as long as it took to turn them into full and productive members of society, who no longer pose a threat to the public.
Any longer and they become more dangerous, time bombs waiting to go off. In conclusion, you will understand that the Bloc Quebecois does not wish to support this bill, but fervently hopes that there will be a complete overhaul of approaches to incarceration.
